Authored by: Rimkus Forensics Marketing Team
Published 5/29/2026
Three investigators reviewing the same ruptured pipe section may identify corrosion or suspect a weld defect, while control room logs may point to an operating pressure excursion. Each reading of the evidence is plausible on its own; each may carry different implications for causation analysis, operational decisions, insurance coverage evaluations, and regulatory review.
Oil and gas incidents often involve several plausible causes at the same time. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has deployed to roughly 180 incidents involving more than 200 fatalities, over 1,300 injuries, and billions of dollars in property damage since 1998. The CSB has stated that single-root-cause models “can be problematic” because “human decision-making is complex and diverse,” a position consistent with the multi-causal analysis framework most claims managers and litigation attorneys operate within.
These investigations proceed across upstream, midstream, and downstream operations, from evidence preservation through expert testimony.
Key takeaways: Investigating an oil and gas incident
After an oil and gas incident, the technical and regulatory picture is rarely simple. Knowing how investigators work helps you judge what the evidence supports for your case.
What makes these investigations complex
- Several federal and state regulatory regimes may apply to one incident, depending on segment.
- Causes often overlap, so a single-root-cause finding may be insufficient.
- Findings are iterative: metallurgy, process safety, and fire dynamics may each reopen earlier analysis.
How to protect your position
- Preserve physical evidence early using established evidence handling and documentation procedures; delays or alterations may reduce the amount of information available for analysis later. .
- Match the investigation to the framework for the segment, whether OSHA PSM, BSEE, or PHMSA.
- Keep expert opinions within what the methodology reliably supports; FRE 702 places that burden on the proponent.
Rimkus provides multidisciplinary forensic investigation and expert witness support for oil and gas incidents; contact us to discuss your matter.
What is an oil and gas incident?
An oil and gas incident, at the regulatory level, is any unplanned event that results in death, injury, property damage, environmental release, or loss of containment of hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119(m)(1) calls for investigation of any event that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release, language that reaches some near-miss events as well. Those investigations may create records subject to the standard’s five-year retention requirement, and parties may later seek them in discovery.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice 754 (RP 754), now in its third edition, classifies Process Safety Events (PSEs) by severity. Tier 1 captures losses of primary containment resulting in fatalities, fires or explosions exceeding $100,000 in direct costs, or threshold quantity releases. Tier 2 covers lesser consequences at lower thresholds.
What types of oil and gas incidents commonly occur?
Incident types vary by segment, and the regulatory authority that applies to the investigation may change accordingly. Those distinctions may also affect the evidence sources, reporting obligations, and technical disciplines that commonly become part of the investigation.
Upstream incidents
Upstream operations (drilling, production, and offshore) generally fall under the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities. BSEE incident data for CY 2025 shows 192 injuries, 182 fires, 121 gas releases, and 2 explosions on the OCS. Lifting incidents are among the larger offshore incident categories, and human performance factors are frequently cited as contributors to major offshore incidents.
Midstream incidents
Pipeline and gathering system incidents generally fall under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which regulates approximately 3.3 million miles of pipeline. PHMSA failure data classifies pipeline failures by cause, including corrosion, excavation damage, material or weld failure, and incorrect operation. In gas distribution systems, excavation damage is among the leading causes of significant incidents reported to PHMSA.
Downstream incidents
Refinery and petrochemical incidents typically fall under OSHA PSM and CSB investigative authority. CSB-documented downstream incident types include vapor cloud explosions, flash fires from released flammable liquids, heat exchanger catastrophic failures, and pressurized-equipment openings without adequate isolation. A 2023 refinery pump coupling failure that led to a naphtha release carried an estimated $829 million in property damage, illustrating the financial scale of downstream losses.
What factors may contribute to oil and gas incidents?
CSB investigations have documented recurring contributing factor patterns across multiple incidents. Mechanical integrity failures, where inspection or testing programs do not detect degradation before failure, appear in several major investigation reports. The Tesoro Anacortes heat exchanger failure (2010) indicated that the API Nelson Curves used to predict High Temperature Hydrogen Attack susceptibility were unreliable as a sole screening method.
Beyond mechanical integrity, organizational and operational factors recur. Management of Change (MOC) deficiencies, alarm system flooding, and over-reliance on human intervention as a safeguard are commonly identified across CSB reports.
Corrosion (external, internal, stress corrosion cracking, and sulfidation) remains a persistent factor across both midstream and downstream segments. The Chevron Richmond pipe rupture (2012) was attributed by the CSB to sulfidation corrosion of carbon steel piping.
How do oil and gas incident investigations typically proceed?
These investigations typically move through preservation, standards review, and multidisciplinary technical analysis. The sequence is rarely clean, and findings in one phase often send the team back to an earlier one.
Scene response and evidence preservation
The NIST Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) Fire Investigation Process Map (2023) embeds chain of custody documentation in the initial data collection process.
ASTM E1188, an ASTM International standard practice for collecting and preserving information and physical items, provides guidance on how a technical investigator handles evidence.
ASTM E860 (Examining and Preparing Evidence Items) addresses the examination and preparation of items that may become involved in litigation. The standard calls for all appropriate parties to receive written notice in advance of any examination or test primarily intended to alter the evidence item’s characteristics. These engineering standards provide structured approaches to evidence handling, documentation, and examination that may assist investigators in preserving relevant information.
Standards and regulatory frameworks that guide investigations
Multiple regulatory frameworks and agencies commonly apply. OSHA PSM (29 CFR 1910.119) applies to processes involving threshold quantities of highly hazardous chemicals and flammable liquids or gases, including those at refineries and chemical processing facilities. BSEE’s Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) under 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart S apply to offshore OCS operations. PHMSA rules at 49 CFR Parts 191 and 195 apply to pipelines. The CSB may conduct federal investigations without enforcement power, and state agencies may impose additional obligations.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (2024 edition), applies broadly to fire and explosion investigations, including industrial incidents. NFPA 921 is widely used within the fire and explosion investigation community as a methodological guide for evaluating fire and explosion incidents.
Multidisciplinary analysis: metallurgy, process safety, and fire dynamics
Oil and gas forensic investigations are often iterative rather than strictly sequential. Metallurgical findings may reopen data collection. Fire dynamics modeling may require additional physical evidence. Process safety analysis may generate new hypotheses requiring further metallurgical examination.
Materials testing teams investigate damage mechanisms including corrosion, cracking, and thermal or mechanical fatigue across piping and pressure vessels. PHMSA Corrective Action Orders have, in past pipeline failures, directed operators to submit failed pipe sections to third-party laboratories for metallurgical testing and root cause analysis.
How does expert witness testimony factor into oil and gas litigation?
Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE 702), as amended December 1, 2023, emphasizes that expert opinions must be supported by sufficient facts, reliable methods, and reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) sits within the Daubert standard that applies to non-scientific testimony, specifically including engineers. For oil and gas experts combining metallurgical analysis with professional experience grounded in API standards and OSHA PSM compliance, both the scientific and experiential components may face independent reliability scrutiny.
How do forensic findings support claims and litigation outcomes?
Oil and gas incident investigations can generate information that may inform regulatory reviews, insurance coverage evaluations, operational improvements, and other decision-making processes. API RP 754 tier classifications provide a standardized framework for classifying and reporting process safety incident severity.
OSHA PSM §1910.119(m)(4) requires investigation reports to identify the factors that contributed to the incident, and OSHA enforcement directive CPL 03-00-004 addresses petroleum refinery process safety management. A single root cause finding may be insufficient. Investigation records retained under the five-year §1910.119(m)(7) requirement run alongside any litigation hold, and parties may seek them in discovery.
Why does the evidence demand multiple disciplines?
Oil and gas incidents sit at the intersection of metallurgy, process engineering, fire dynamics, and regulatory compliance. Regulatory fragmentation across OSHA, BSEE, PHMSA, the CSB, and state agencies adds jurisdictional complexity that may affect how oil and gas incidents are investigated. Investigations grounded in recognized methodologies, documented evidence handling procedures, and established engineering practices can provide a well-documented technical record for stakeholders evaluating the incident.
Rimkus Forensic Services offers multidisciplinary forensic investigation and expert witness support for oil and gas incidents across upstream, midstream, and downstream operations. Contact us to discuss specific investigation requirements.
Frequently asked questions about forensic engineering for oil and gas incidents
How do forensic engineers determine the cause of an oil and gas incident?
Forensic engineers determine the cause of an oil and gas incident by evaluating physical evidence, operating data, maintenance records, inspection history, testing results, and witness information. Depending on the incident, the investigation may involve metallurgical analysis, process safety review, fire and explosion analysis, equipment examination, and evaluation of operating conditions leading up to the event.
What evidence is typically examined during an oil and gas incident investigation?
The evidence examined depends on the incident, but investigators commonly review failed equipment, pipe sections, control system data, maintenance and inspection records, operating procedures, alarm logs, witness statements, laboratory testing results, and site documentation. The goal is to understand how the incident occurred and identify contributing factors.
How can overpressure ruptures be reduced in oil and gas equipment?
The risk of overpressure ruptures in oil and gas equipment may be reduced through layered protection combining design, relief devices, instrumentation, and operating discipline. Regular testing, inspection, Management of Change, and hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies may help confirm that independent protection layers remain effective across credible overpressure scenarios.
This article is intended to provide general information and insights into prevailing industry practices. It is not intended to constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal, technical, or professional advice. The content does not replace consultation with a qualified expert or professional regarding the specific facts and circumstances of any particular matter.